A Boomer Tries to Rub the Blindspot Away: Michael Kinsley - Page 3

As BR points out, Hong Kong is a perfect example of our world view, a view which is NOT anti-Freedom. Hong Kong mixes freedom with rights and protections, and has plenty of socialism. This demonstrates exactly what I'm saying in the above post.

As BR points out, Hong Kong is a perfect example of our world view, a view which is NOT anti-Freedom. Hong Kong mixes freedom with rights and protections, and has plenty of socialism. This demonstrates exactly what I'm saying in the above post.

Yup. It's totally disingenuous to put that up as a Libertarian paradise. It's a much better example of a Social Democracy.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

As BR points out, Hong Kong is a perfect example of our world view, a view which is NOT anti-Freedom. Hong Kong mixes freedom with rights and protections, and has plenty of socialism. This demonstrates exactly what I'm saying in the above post.

If Hong Kong is, then we're in agreement. We're done. Now we just need to implement the Hong Kong model in the US. That will require cutting taxes and government spending...a lot.

First, we agree that Hong Kong is closer to the model I'd like to see. The US is far away from that. If I could not get the ideal model, Hong Kong would be closer. From a US perspective that means much lower taxes and much smaller government, much less government spending and much less crony capitalism, etc.

As for universal healthcare, I believe that there are better, market-driven approaches to solve the problems with healthcare. I didn't say Hong Kong was perfect...but it would be closer on most issues than the US currently is.

The banking meltdown is a perfect example of deregulation leading to corruption and ultimately failure.

I suspect you think you understand the underlying causes of the meltdown, but don't really.

Simply put the banking and monetary and credit system of the US is nothing at all like a free-market system. Whether regulations changed or not, fundamentally it is a government-backed, sponsored and controlled cartel and monopoly. When you understand this fundamental fact, you'll begin to understand what I'm talking about.

So...in short...if the US wanted to adopt a similar approach to Hong Kong...which would include total government spending (state local and federal) of around 19% of GDP (that's about half what it spends now) and a tax regime similar to HK (which would lower personal incomes taxes to the 2-17% range and corporate income taxes below 17%) and trade tariffs of zero and reducing other trade barriers.

Then sure...that would be good.

P.S. Another point to make here is that HK currently spends about US $5.4 billion per year on its social welfare programs for a population of about 7M. A corresponding level for the US with a population of 308M would be around US $230 billion. It's hard to find clear numbers for the current US expenditures on this...but it looks like around $1 trillion (or more). Not sure if I'm comparing like programs or not though.

So, cut the shit out of the military. Uncap the payroll tax to keep Social Security solvent. Universalize Healthcare and allow for negotiation of pharmaceuticals from Canada to decrease costs. End the wars. Give every American free access to higher education.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

So, cut the shit out of the military. Uncap the payroll tax to keep Social Security solvent. Universalize Healthcare and allow for negotiation of pharmaceuticals from Canada to decrease costs. End the wars. Give every American free access to higher education.

Some of those will work, some won't.

I agree with ending the wars and reducing military spending. It won't be enough though.

I'd phase out SS in some way. Or at least turn it back into what it originated as...a modest safety net for the last couple years of life. Privatize nearly all education.

But again...we disagree on approaches. And that's ok...no need to be angry about it.

Universal, (almost) free health care. -- From what I've read it's a 2-tier system with the government providing basic catastrophic insurance which is very different from what's going on in the US.
Heavily subsidized housing.
Social assistance.
Free social services.
Old age allowance.
Government sponsored work programs.
Minimum wage.
Standard tax deduction which means 60% of wage earners pay no income tax. -- And much lower income tax rates.
No corporate profit tax loopholes. -- And much lower corporate income tax rates.
No sales tax. -- We have this at the state levels.
No import tariffs except on automobiles, luxury goods, alcohol and tobacco. -- better than the US
No publicly owned guns.
Fantastic public transportation system, private, but government invested and subsidized.
Anti-discrimination laws.

...
P.S. Another point to make here is that HK currently spends about US $5.4 billion per year on its social welfare programs for a population of about 7M. A corresponding level for the US with a population of 308M would be around US $230 billion. It's hard to find clear numbers for the current US expenditures on this...but it looks like around $1 trillion (or more). Not sure if I'm comparing like programs or not though.

We might also keep in mind that HK (and many other countries) do NOT provide their federally funded programs "free" to non-citizens. A darn good idea.

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...

• Universal, (almost) free health care. -- From what I've read it's a 2-tier system with the government providing basic catastrophic insurance which is very different from what's going on in the US.

What you've heard is wrong, apparently. It's a free, non-means tested, fully functional service, available to all residents (not just citizens). Even temporary visitors are provided a huge subsidy. I can go to a public hospital A&E department for the flu. And pay a US$12.50 administration (and anti-abuse) fee for three days' medicine. And I can go to a public hospital A&E for more serious issues. Like my reflux esophagitis. In fact I did. I had an endoscopy last month. I had to wait two months for this, but I don't mind, if it means I don't have to pay several thousand Hong Kong dollars for the same procedure. Which I can choose to do if I don't want to wait. I was given eight weeks' medicine. I will have a follow-up endoscopy next month. Total cost to me, including medicine -- US$25. Plus whatever was taken out of my taxes.

Quote:

• Standard tax deduction which means 60% of wage earners pay no income tax. -- And much lower income tax rates.

Yep. But the US needs to spend more per capita on infrastructure and defense. This is the only reason, but a valid reason, income taxes need to be higher in the US.

What you've heard is wrong, apparently. It's a free, non-means tested, fully functional service, available to all residents (not just citizens). Even temporary visitors are provided a huge subsidy. I can go to a public hospital A&E department for the flu. And pay a US$12.50 administration (and anti-abuse) fee for three days' medicine. And I can go to a public hospital A&E for more serious issues. Like my reflux esophagitis. In fact I did. I had an endoscopy last month. I had to wait two months for this, but I don't mind, if it means I don't have to pay several thousand Hong Kong dollars for the same procedure. Which I can choose to do if I don't want to wait. I was given eight weeks' medicine. I will have a follow-up endoscopy next month. Total cost to me, including medicine -- US$25. Plus whatever was taken out of my taxes.

I doubt any of that is going to have any long-term negative consequences.

We might also keep in mind that HK (and many other countries) do NOT provide their federally funded programs "free" to non-citizens. A darn good idea.

On the contrary. You're 100% wrong about Hong Kong. It seems you didn't even try.

As I've pointed out, all residents, not just citizens, qualify for free health care. Even visitors qualify for subsidized health care.

All Mainland Chinese immigrants, even before they are granted citizenship, also qualify for nearly free housing. They qualify for social assistance. They qualify for Government sponsored social services.

So please, know what you're talking about before you open your mouth... er... keyboard.

I would say, obviously, Denmark, Sweden, Norway... but then you'll turn around and defend yourself by being imtellectually dishonest and saying that those nations are all rich ONLY because of oil. So instead, I'll say The Netherlands; Belgium. Of course you'll again be intellectually dishonest and say those nations are only successful at using the social democratic model because they're small, or because they're homogenous, or because of tourism... or whatever other intellectually dishonest excuse you can come up with.

I'll even do your homework for you, and show where the Scandinavian model has failed. Iceland. But there are easy fixes to a system to prevent the Iceland effect.

Now, instead of arguing with regard to my answers, which I know you are itching in your pants to do, you give us your example.

Your turn.

If you want to know what someone thinks, don't ask a question and then answer it with what you assume their answer will be and call them intellectually dishonest. It makes them inclined to ignore you.

If you want to know what someone thinks, don't ask a question and then answer it with what you assume their answer will be and call them intellectually dishonest. It makes them inclined to ignore you.

Fair enough. So let me ask you, why do you think Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Holland have such low poverty and such a high standard of living? Then please provide your example of a place where a Libertarian approach has been successful, absent of strong social policy. Thanks.

Fair enough. So let me ask you, why do you think Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Holland have such low poverty and such a high standard of living? Then please provide your example of a place where a Libertarian approach has been successful, absent of strong social policy. Thanks.

I do not know enough about Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Holland to answer your question without doing some research.

However, from the little I do know, their success in certain areas cannot be attributed to any one overriding political or economical philosophy (capitalism, socialism, etc.) but a combination of many different things.

An experiment in true libertarianism would require a government much like the one our founding fathers sought to establish. Probably closer to the one outlined in the Articles of Confederation than our present Constitution. To my knowledge, such a government does not currently exist.

You do realize they quickly dissolved the original iteration of the United States and rewrote the Constitution in 1789 because the Articles of Confederation DID NOT WORK.

Well...maybe...that's not entirely clear.

There were some political shenanigans going on that make this kind of claim much less clear.

What is clear is that there was a faction that was bent on trying to centralize and consolidate power and the Articles of Confederation made that difficult to do. So, instead of making a few adjustments (as was expected), they threw it out and created what we call "the Constitution" now which considerably centralized and consolidated power in the central government. And while it is often thought of as being an instrument of limited government, a more careful examination reveals huge loopholes and rather vague "limits" that enabled massive and unrestricted governmental expansion.

So please, know what you're talking about before you open your mouth... er... keyboard.

I certainly wasn't offered free housing when I was there.

But my direct experience as a non-citizen resident was with Australia... where non residents have to pay tuition to use the public school system, they have to pay premiums to use the public healthcare system, and pay higher tax rates than citizens... none of which bothered me in the least.

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...

On the contrary. You're 100% wrong about Hong Kong. It seems you didn't even try.

As I've pointed out, all residents, not just citizens, qualify for free health care. Even visitors qualify for subsidized health care.

All Mainland Chinese immigrants, even before they are granted citizenship, also qualify for nearly free housing. They qualify for social assistance. They qualify for Government sponsored social services.

So please, know what you're talking about before you open your mouth... er... keyboard.

You are intentionally making it sound like there is some sort of open border policy when nothing could be further from the truth. The entire country is walled off from Mainland China. Who can come and go or receive these services is strictly sanctioned. You must carry ID on you at all times and the police can ask you for it at any time under threat of arrest if you do not identify yourself.

If someone is a resident, it is they have been legally allowed to come there. They didn't just stroll over from mainland China and start receiving services.

However perhaps that is what they ought to do per your reasoning. I wonder how long that would be sustainable.

Hey tonton, where does Hong Kong get all their food? They certainly don't grow it all there. Do they extend universal health care to all the peasants picking their food for them in China? Do they allow them to free pass through those gates and come sit at the same table as you?

There were some political shenanigans going on that make this kind of claim much less clear.

What is clear is that there was a faction that was bent on trying to centralize and consolidate power and the Articles of Confederation made that difficult to do. So, instead of making a few adjustments (as was expected), they threw it out and created what we call "the Constitution" now which considerably centralized and consolidated power in the central government. And while it is often thought of as being an instrument of limited government, a more careful examination reveals huge loopholes and rather vague "limits" that enabled massive and unrestricted governmental expansion.

Indeed. The Articles of Confederation worked too well at decentralizing power and keeping it with the states and the people.

For example, here are some of the differences the Articles have from the Constitution:

the federal government AND the states had the power to coin money

the federal legislature was unicameral (simply "Congress")

representatives were appointed by state legislatures in the manner each state saw fit

representatives had 1 year terms and term limits of no more than 3 out of every 6 years

Congressional pay was paid by the states, not the federal government

there was no Executive branch (President)

Clearly, those who wanted to consolidate power would have found it virtually impossible to do under the Articles of Confederation. Hence the "need" for our present Constitution.

Danish politicians proudly proclaims that Denmark is the most egalitarian country in the world. They may be right. The obsession with equality delivers a crushing, daily blow to anyone with a new idea or the inkling to cultivate an ability that surpasses the norm. Young people have virtually no chance to improve their lot in life, to take risks, to make it big through innovation and entrepreneurship.

Excellent and hard work are not rewarded by a system that systematically levels the population into a huge homogenous middle class, whose standard of living advances only incrementally and in ways that flout economic priorities. A total tax level that approaches 70 percent is a relentless and debilitating reminder that this country desires no personal economic achievement and no accumulation of wealth.

All the data presented in this opinion piece comes from a presumed point of view that taxes are bad. I don't think taxes are bad. I don't disagree with any of the factual data presented.

But...

And yet many people seem to be happy with this system
Exactly! That's the fucking point! People are happy. A system where people are happy, all the people (not just some) is the Goal! Except for the greedy, uncompassionate, over competitive people who enjoy seeing others in a lesser position than they.

Of course it sets up a dynamic that harms everyone in the long run,
Huh!? Where is this demonstrated? The author just jumped to a totally disconnected assumption that at best is naivety and at worst a bold-faced lie.

Equality and stability are regarded as more important than progress and freedom.
Bull. Shit.

Freedom for whom? Progress toward what end?

Happiness is regarded as more important than per-capita GDP. As it should be.

You are intentionally making it sound like there is some sort of open border policy when nothing could be further from the truth. The entire country is walled off from Mainland China. Who can come and go or receive these services is strictly sanctioned. You must carry ID on you at all times and the police can ask you for it at any time under threat of arrest if you do not identify yourself.

If someone is a resident, it is they have been legally allowed to come there. They didn't just stroll over from mainland China and start receiving services.

However perhaps that is what they ought to do per your reasoning. I wonder how long that would be sustainable.

Hey tonton, where does Hong Kong get all their food? They certainly don't grow it all there. Do they extend universal health care to all the peasants picking their food for them in China? Do they allow them to free pass through those gates and come sit at the same table as you?

I love how Tonton continues to present Hong Kong as the solution to the world when they can't grow food, live behind a giant wall and have much lower tax rates than the United States.

Do you think if a Republican ran on a platform of cutting all our tax rates in half, limiting government spending for health care services to providing some basic care for those legally allowed in the country and built giant walls to keep out all the people peasant farmers that they would have any trouble getting elected in the United States?

You keep advocating what amounts to the Tea Party while being to blind to see the irony.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

What part of any of that is not opinion?

All the data presented in this opinion piece comes from a presumed point of view that taxes are bad. I don't think taxes are bad. I don't disagree with any of the factual data presented.

But...

And yet many people seem to be happy with this system
Exactly! That's the fucking point! People are happy. A system where people are happy, all the people (not just some) is the Goal! Except for the greedy, uncompassionate, over competitive people who enjoy seeing others in a lesser position than they.

Of course it sets up a dynamic that harms everyone in the long run,
Huh!? Where is this demonstrated? The author just jumped to a totally disconnected assumption that at best is naivety and at worst a bold-faced lie.

Equality and stability are regarded as more important than progress and freedom.
Bull. Shit.

Freedom for whom? Progress toward what end?

Happiness is regarded as more important than per-capita GDP. As it should be.

Treasury secretaries have tapped special programs to avoid default six times since 1985. The most protracted delay in raising the debt limit came in 1995 after congressional Republicans swept to power during the Clinton administration.

But today, the government needs far more money to cover its obligations than in the past, making the special measures less effective than they used to be. The government needs about $125 billion more a month than it takes in each month.

Dear World,

We need to borrow Apple Inc. every 90 days. Don't worry, the kids, grandkids and the lawn man will pay it back after we are dead. We promise!

I love how Tonton continues to present Hong Kong as the solution to the world when they can't grow food, live behind a giant wall and have much lower tax rates than the United States.

China doesn't give their food to Hong Kong for free. And yes, there is a lot of meat and produce that is locally produced, for your information. Most of our beef comes from Australia, not China. Most of our pork is local. Our oranges are almost all Sunkist, from the good ol' US of A.

So please. Show your ignorance the backdoor before you speak out of it.

Quote:

Do you think if a Republican ran on a platform of cutting all our tax rates in half, limiting government spending for health care services to providing some basic care for those legally allowed in the country and built giant walls to keep out all the people peasant farmers that they would have any trouble getting elected in the United States?

You don't put the cart before the horse. Cut spending first, then cut taxes. But do it while you enable the lower and middle class to live at a reasonable standard of living.

Quote:

You keep advocating what amounts to the Tea Party while being to blind to see the irony.

Nope. The Tea Party wants to cut taxes first, thinking that cutting taxes can magically increase revenue, which is idiotic. The Tea Party would love to eliminate minimum wage, which is idiotic. The Tea Party wants to cut regulations which keep people from getting sick or dying at restaurants, or which keep deep drilling oil rigs from exploding and creating ecological and economic disasters.

Quote:

I'm seriously starting to wonder about your comprehension skills. Words have lost their meaning for you.

Care to respond to my post, or are you just throwing out bullshit, as usual?

From what I can see some of the ones that cut taxes are also trying to reduce spending by reducing the amount of funds available to be spent. The problem is, when the govt runs out of funds, they increase their credit line instead of making cuts.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi